9 ms·

>Whether it's for the better or worse simply doesn't matter Yikes- I have only a little sympathy for the taxi industry, but it is very scary that you do not be

>Whether it's for the better or worse simply doesn't matter Yikes- I have only a little sympathy for the taxi industry, but it is very scary that you do not believe we should be concerned with whether market forces improve society or not. I think it is extremely important to the vast majority of people that any enormous change in transportation occurs for the benefit of society - the ideology that capitalism is an end into itself is extreme and fringe, and we shouldn't be afraid to call it out as such.

sharemywin 9y ago
As much as I'd like to agree with you, calling it "fringe" might unfortunately underestimate the number of people that support.
bitJericho 9y ago
We'll see what you think of the cab industry when uber raises their prices by 3 times in order to become profitable, after the cabbies all gone.
- brianwawok 9y ago
  As long as Lyft is around, they can't.
  - incongruity 9y ago
    You're right. There are no markets in which a few dominant players capture significant profits because there are only a few dominant players who exploit barriers to entry or network effects to stay on top... Except pharma, telecom, energy, airlines and one or two others...
    - cortesoft 9y ago
      Other than pharma, you just mentioned 3 industries that have very low margins. They aren't making a ton of money on their monopolies.
      - brianwawok 9y ago
        Indeed I think he proved my point. I am not sure who would like taxi industry to pharma?
    - TheLongerCon 9y ago
      The barriers to entry with ride sharing are absurdly lower than anything else on that list. The network effect is pretty weak, because it doesn't cost consumers/drive more time or energy to keep multiple apps on their phone.
- linkregister 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure Lyft, which is just about as good as Uber for taking ordinary trips, will moderate that. Lyft isn't going anywhere; their cash reserves are large. Also public transit, car rentals, etc.
  - imron 9y ago
    Public transit and car rentals are a poor substitute for a taxi service.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      I must be weird. I travel over 100 days a year. I do a lot of walking, sometimes rent cars, take public transportation, etc. I take taxis etc. relatively rarely.
      - imron 9y ago
        Each of those options is perfectly fine for transportation if you planned and or intended to use them, what I mean is that whenever I've used a taxi or taxi-like service, car rental and/or public transportation would not have been a valid substitute or even possible. Car rental because you have to pick up the car and later drop it off and the costs are significantly higher than a taxi, and public transportation because it's slower, more crowded (therefore more difficult with luggage) and doesn't always go directly where you want to go. On a city-wide scale you can't expect car rentals and public transportation to be a valid replacement for a taxi/taxi-like service.
        kolinko 9y ago
        Have you been to Europe? I live in Poland and use public transportation as much as Uber - being able to afford both just as easily.
        imron 9y ago
        I have lived in Europe, although not Poland, but my point is not that public transportation is not useful, just that it's not always a suitable replacement for a taxi.
- brazzy 9y ago
  That's the thing - without the artificial entry barriers like medallions, if they do that then a competitor like Lyft can show up and undercut them very quickly.
  - abalashov 9y ago
    Well. Sort of. I wouldn't underestimate the complexity of all the logistics and automation required to deliver this consistently, reliably, and at a large scale, not to mention network effects, market saturation, getting to critical mass, etc.
    - criddell 9y ago
      It's not getting any harder though.
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  Yeah, and I bet after Borders shuts down, you'll see Amazon raise book prices sky-high! People always claim this will happen, and it never seems to. If Uber tripled prices, a competitor would start up to cut into their market share.
  - bitJericho 9y ago
    VCs wont pay for rides forever.
    - Paul-ish 9y ago
      True, but in cities with medallions supply was effectively restricted which probably had an influence on prices. That probably wont happen under a rideshare system.
    - tw04 9y ago
      VCs are just paying for rides until self-driving cars get to the point that drivers are no longer needed. I'm not concerned with the price of rides increasing, I'm concerned with the unemployment our country is going to get punched in the face with. Between cab drivers and OTR (truckers), we're going to have a MUCH bigger problem on our hands than we've seen since Detroit collapsed (which was arguably less of an issue since it occurred over a longer period of time).
      - sundaeofshock 9y ago
        VCs are needed until a self-driving car can pick an elderly passenger at the airport and help them with their baggage when they get home. Uber will run out of money long before we have self-driving cars.
        taxicabjesus 9y ago
        > VCs are needed until a self-driving car can pick an elderly passenger at the airport and help them with their baggage when they get home. This is a very good point. Also consider that many more people need help with groceries than with luggage.
- weberc2 9y ago
  I live in Chicago; I rarely use Uber. Mostly Lyft. Works just as well and less embroiled in ethical faux pas.
  - furioussloth 9y ago
    Same applies for Lyft. The rides are cheap because of VC money. It is a good thing to have competition to keep the prices in check.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      The original comment referred to price gouging due to lack of competition. VC money might subsidize the rides (or more likely find ongoing development?), but Uber and Lyft are bound to be cheaper than taxis for as long as they can remain less entangled with governments (less artificial price inflation).
      - clock_tower 9y ago
        The problem is that Uber loses money on every ride, so they'll have to raise their rates as soon as they stop being subsidized by VCs -- unless they have self-driving taxis by then.
        PacketPaul 9y ago
        How are they losing money on each ride? They are not managing fleets of cars, employees, etc. It's an app.
        xigency 9y ago
        That is exactly the question you should be asking, thank you. Answer is they provide great rates for passengers - see all of the anecdotal evidence here - and great pay for drivers. It literally is "too good to be true." It's just an app--with a $20B valuation and about as much in free cash.
        9y ago
- Shorel 9y ago
  Then a dozen smaller companies will pop up with similar services and cheaper prices. The genie is out of the bottle.
- shitgoose 9y ago
  unreasonable profits should be protected by medallions. if uber does not come up with medallion system that is enforced and protected by elected officials, their rate hike will be a fart in a wind.
- PacketPaul 9y ago
  How are these guys not profitable? It is basically an app that gets paid to match riders with rides. My guess is they are spending a lot of money expanding. Once done, they will be instantly profitable.
  - InitialLastName 9y ago
    They subsidize their drivers to keep their prices artificially low. It helps them out-compete the folks who have to turn a profit.
- op00to 9y ago
  At that point, I'll enter the market and only charge 2x taxi fares, and undercut Uber. I'll be a millionaire!
weberc2 9y ago
I read the original post a couple of times after reading your comment, and I don't get any vibe that he doesn't think we should be concerned about the impact of market forces on social wellbeing. Unless you're implying something about the taxi industry being a social good more so than Uber or Lyft, but that seems unlikely given that you have little sympathy for the industry. I live in Chicago, and I don't know if Lyft and Uber are a social good, but taxis were too expensive for me, and now I have another affordable option for transportation. Plus all of the drivers I've spoken to seem pretty happy with their new source of income, so it's mostly the city and medallion owners that are losing out. The city can take action to help ease medallion owners out of the industry without defaulting as the demand continues to decline, and drivers are completely qualified for the ride-share industry. As far as disruptions go, this one seems pretty agreeable (I don't have much sympathy for the bureaucrats who are stuck between raising taxes and rooting out corruption and mismanagement in order to make up the difference).
- selectodude 9y ago
  The city gets their $2/ride or whatever from Lyft/Uber, I strongly doubt they're too concerned.
acchow 9y ago
> I think it is extremely important to the vast majority of people that any enormous change in transportation occurs for the benefit of society There's a lot of people who would disagree with you. They are called libertarians. What matters first and foremost is freedom - individual freedoms should not be overridden for the sake of improving society.
- eldavido 9y ago
  Well not just that, but also, Uber and Lyft are moving a lot of people around, cheaply, all while providing income for drivers. All that's going on here is that cabbies made a bad investment and are losing. Sorry, but if you're tying up 90% of your wealth in a single asset, the value of which is 100% dependent on fickle regulation, and you didn't see this coming a few years ago, I don't have much sympathy. No prudent financial adviser would recommend this, and further, if you were so exposed, you should've been paying attention to what's happened in the industry over the past, I don't know, 8 years?
- rayiner 9y ago
  Libertarians (at least, ones that aren't the anarchist kind) don't believe in freedom. They believe in property rights, which are by definition an encumberance on freedom. (The difference between mere possession and a property right is that the latter is enforced through the government's monopoly on violence.)
  - gehwartzen 9y ago
    This is the argument I usually get into with my more libertarian friends who think property rights and individual freedoms don't impose limits on one another. What happens when someone buys the land all around your house and prevents you from even getting to or leaving your property?
    - PacketPaul 9y ago
      If you buy land where the only access is through another person's private property, that is your own fault. The purchaser has a responsibility to do their own due diligence.
acchow 9y ago
> I think it is extremely important to the vast majority of people that any enormous change in transportation occurs for the benefit of society There's a lot of people who would disagree with you. They are called libertarians. What matters first and foremost is freedom - individual freedoms should not be overridden for the sake of improving society.
wand3r 9y ago
I read it as a practicality. It doesn't matter in the sense that; like it or not, it happened. Factually, the change took place and the effects are real. You can make a new change through market or regulations but currently things are now different.
valuearb 9y ago
The market, i.e. customers, are saying they prefer Lyft and Uber to monopoly taxis. Market forces are naturally driven by customer demand and the realities of supply costs. Government intervention/subsidies is the only thing that interferes with that process, and almost always that intervention is being driven by self interested actors looking to reap above market profits. You may not like what customers want, but that doesn't mean it's not better for them.
- optimusclimb 9y ago
  I don't prefer Lyft or Uber to monopoly taxis, I prefer to axe the monopoly part, which seems to have led to terrible taxi service in many places. I don't want - Drivers that drive like maniacs. Drivers that spend the entire ride on a phone call to god knows where. Drivers who lie to me and tell me they can't accept my credit card. However, it seems to be conflated that the alternative to that can only be people using their private cars that don't necessarily know the area they're driving in and are by no means professional drivers working in an ill-defined "non-employee"/Employer relationship with Uber.
  - pavel_lishin 9y ago
    > Drivers who lie to me and tell me they can't accept my credit card. For what it's worth, in New York, that's not your problem if they tell you at the end of the ride. By law, if a card reader is broken, they must inform you of this at the beginning. None of this "ok, I take you to ATM" business that tacks on a few more bucks onto the meter.
CamperBob2 9y ago
Yikes- I have only a little sympathy for the taxi industry, but it is very scary that you do not believe we should be concerned with whether market forces improve society or not. Pretty much any actual customers of ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft have already answered that question adequately for themselves. No one else's opinion -- not yours, not mine, and damned sure not the taxi cartel's -- is of any importance. That doesn't mean there aren't risks, of course, especially for those who think the cheap rides are going to last forever. If government has a legitimate role here, it will come into play when the VCs get tired of subsidizing said Uber and Lyft customers. The taxi medallion business may be dead, but it won't be buried for good until the ride-sharing industry is genuinely self-sustaining.

sharemywin 9y ago

As much as I'd like to agree with you, calling it "fringe" might unfortunately underestimate the number of people that support.

bitJericho 9y ago

We'll see what you think of the cab industry when uber raises their prices by 3 times in order to become profitable, after the cabbies all gone.

brianwawok 9y ago
As long as Lyft is around, they can't.
- incongruity 9y ago
  You're right. There are no markets in which a few dominant players capture significant profits because there are only a few dominant players who exploit barriers to entry or network effects to stay on top... Except pharma, telecom, energy, airlines and one or two others...
  - cortesoft 9y ago
    Other than pharma, you just mentioned 3 industries that have very low margins. They aren't making a ton of money on their monopolies.
    - brianwawok 9y ago
      Indeed I think he proved my point. I am not sure who would like taxi industry to pharma?
  - TheLongerCon 9y ago
    The barriers to entry with ride sharing are absurdly lower than anything else on that list. The network effect is pretty weak, because it doesn't cost consumers/drive more time or energy to keep multiple apps on their phone.
linkregister 9y ago
I'm pretty sure Lyft, which is just about as good as Uber for taking ordinary trips, will moderate that. Lyft isn't going anywhere; their cash reserves are large. Also public transit, car rentals, etc.
- imron 9y ago
  Public transit and car rentals are a poor substitute for a taxi service.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    I must be weird. I travel over 100 days a year. I do a lot of walking, sometimes rent cars, take public transportation, etc. I take taxis etc. relatively rarely.
    - imron 9y ago
      Each of those options is perfectly fine for transportation if you planned and or intended to use them, what I mean is that whenever I've used a taxi or taxi-like service, car rental and/or public transportation would not have been a valid substitute or even possible. Car rental because you have to pick up the car and later drop it off and the costs are significantly higher than a taxi, and public transportation because it's slower, more crowded (therefore more difficult with luggage) and doesn't always go directly where you want to go. On a city-wide scale you can't expect car rentals and public transportation to be a valid replacement for a taxi/taxi-like service.
      - kolinko 9y ago
        Have you been to Europe? I live in Poland and use public transportation as much as Uber - being able to afford both just as easily.
        imron 9y ago
        I have lived in Europe, although not Poland, but my point is not that public transportation is not useful, just that it's not always a suitable replacement for a taxi.
brazzy 9y ago
That's the thing - without the artificial entry barriers like medallions, if they do that then a competitor like Lyft can show up and undercut them very quickly.
- abalashov 9y ago
  Well. Sort of. I wouldn't underestimate the complexity of all the logistics and automation required to deliver this consistently, reliably, and at a large scale, not to mention network effects, market saturation, getting to critical mass, etc.
  - criddell 9y ago
    It's not getting any harder though.
TulliusCicero 9y ago
Yeah, and I bet after Borders shuts down, you'll see Amazon raise book prices sky-high! People always claim this will happen, and it never seems to. If Uber tripled prices, a competitor would start up to cut into their market share.
- bitJericho 9y ago
  VCs wont pay for rides forever.
  - Paul-ish 9y ago
    True, but in cities with medallions supply was effectively restricted which probably had an influence on prices. That probably wont happen under a rideshare system.
  - tw04 9y ago
    VCs are just paying for rides until self-driving cars get to the point that drivers are no longer needed. I'm not concerned with the price of rides increasing, I'm concerned with the unemployment our country is going to get punched in the face with. Between cab drivers and OTR (truckers), we're going to have a MUCH bigger problem on our hands than we've seen since Detroit collapsed (which was arguably less of an issue since it occurred over a longer period of time).
    - sundaeofshock 9y ago
      VCs are needed until a self-driving car can pick an elderly passenger at the airport and help them with their baggage when they get home. Uber will run out of money long before we have self-driving cars.
      - taxicabjesus 9y ago
        > VCs are needed until a self-driving car can pick an elderly passenger at the airport and help them with their baggage when they get home. This is a very good point. Also consider that many more people need help with groceries than with luggage.
weberc2 9y ago
I live in Chicago; I rarely use Uber. Mostly Lyft. Works just as well and less embroiled in ethical faux pas.
- furioussloth 9y ago
  Same applies for Lyft. The rides are cheap because of VC money. It is a good thing to have competition to keep the prices in check.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    The original comment referred to price gouging due to lack of competition. VC money might subsidize the rides (or more likely find ongoing development?), but Uber and Lyft are bound to be cheaper than taxis for as long as they can remain less entangled with governments (less artificial price inflation).
    - clock_tower 9y ago
      The problem is that Uber loses money on every ride, so they'll have to raise their rates as soon as they stop being subsidized by VCs -- unless they have self-driving taxis by then.
      - PacketPaul 9y ago
        How are they losing money on each ride? They are not managing fleets of cars, employees, etc. It's an app.
        xigency 9y ago
        That is exactly the question you should be asking, thank you. Answer is they provide great rates for passengers - see all of the anecdotal evidence here - and great pay for drivers. It literally is "too good to be true." It's just an app--with a $20B valuation and about as much in free cash.
      - 9y ago
Shorel 9y ago
Then a dozen smaller companies will pop up with similar services and cheaper prices. The genie is out of the bottle.
shitgoose 9y ago
unreasonable profits should be protected by medallions. if uber does not come up with medallion system that is enforced and protected by elected officials, their rate hike will be a fart in a wind.
PacketPaul 9y ago
How are these guys not profitable? It is basically an app that gets paid to match riders with rides. My guess is they are spending a lot of money expanding. Once done, they will be instantly profitable.
- InitialLastName 9y ago
  They subsidize their drivers to keep their prices artificially low. It helps them out-compete the folks who have to turn a profit.
op00to 9y ago
At that point, I'll enter the market and only charge 2x taxi fares, and undercut Uber. I'll be a millionaire!

weberc2 9y ago

I read the original post a couple of times after reading your comment, and I don't get any vibe that he doesn't think we should be concerned about the impact of market forces on social wellbeing. Unless you're implying something about the taxi industry being a social good more so than Uber or Lyft, but that seems unlikely given that you have little sympathy for the industry. I live in Chicago, and I don't know if Lyft and Uber are a social good, but taxis were too expensive for me, and now I have another affordable option for transportation. Plus all of the drivers I've spoken to seem pretty happy with their new source of income, so it's mostly the city and medallion owners that are losing out. The city can take action to help ease medallion owners out of the industry without defaulting as the demand continues to decline, and drivers are completely qualified for the ride-share industry. As far as disruptions go, this one seems pretty agreeable (I don't have much sympathy for the bureaucrats who are stuck between raising taxes and rooting out corruption and mismanagement in order to make up the difference).

selectodude 9y ago
The city gets their $2/ride or whatever from Lyft/Uber, I strongly doubt they're too concerned.

acchow 9y ago

> I think it is extremely important to the vast majority of people that any enormous change in transportation occurs for the benefit of society There's a lot of people who would disagree with you. They are called libertarians. What matters first and foremost is freedom - individual freedoms should not be overridden for the sake of improving society.

eldavido 9y ago
Well not just that, but also, Uber and Lyft are moving a lot of people around, cheaply, all while providing income for drivers. All that's going on here is that cabbies made a bad investment and are losing. Sorry, but if you're tying up 90% of your wealth in a single asset, the value of which is 100% dependent on fickle regulation, and you didn't see this coming a few years ago, I don't have much sympathy. No prudent financial adviser would recommend this, and further, if you were so exposed, you should've been paying attention to what's happened in the industry over the past, I don't know, 8 years?
rayiner 9y ago
Libertarians (at least, ones that aren't the anarchist kind) don't believe in freedom. They believe in property rights, which are by definition an encumberance on freedom. (The difference between mere possession and a property right is that the latter is enforced through the government's monopoly on violence.)
- gehwartzen 9y ago
  This is the argument I usually get into with my more libertarian friends who think property rights and individual freedoms don't impose limits on one another. What happens when someone buys the land all around your house and prevents you from even getting to or leaving your property?
  - PacketPaul 9y ago
    If you buy land where the only access is through another person's private property, that is your own fault. The purchaser has a responsibility to do their own due diligence.

acchow 9y ago

wand3r 9y ago

I read it as a practicality. It doesn't matter in the sense that; like it or not, it happened. Factually, the change took place and the effects are real. You can make a new change through market or regulations but currently things are now different.

valuearb 9y ago

The market, i.e. customers, are saying they prefer Lyft and Uber to monopoly taxis. Market forces are naturally driven by customer demand and the realities of supply costs. Government intervention/subsidies is the only thing that interferes with that process, and almost always that intervention is being driven by self interested actors looking to reap above market profits. You may not like what customers want, but that doesn't mean it's not better for them.

optimusclimb 9y ago
I don't prefer Lyft or Uber to monopoly taxis, I prefer to axe the monopoly part, which seems to have led to terrible taxi service in many places. I don't want - Drivers that drive like maniacs. Drivers that spend the entire ride on a phone call to god knows where. Drivers who lie to me and tell me they can't accept my credit card. However, it seems to be conflated that the alternative to that can only be people using their private cars that don't necessarily know the area they're driving in and are by no means professional drivers working in an ill-defined "non-employee"/Employer relationship with Uber.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  > Drivers who lie to me and tell me they can't accept my credit card. For what it's worth, in New York, that's not your problem if they tell you at the end of the ride. By law, if a card reader is broken, they must inform you of this at the beginning. None of this "ok, I take you to ATM" business that tacks on a few more bucks onto the meter.

CamperBob2 9y ago

Yikes- I have only a little sympathy for the taxi industry, but it is very scary that you do not believe we should be concerned with whether market forces improve society or not. Pretty much any actual customers of ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft have already answered that question adequately for themselves. No one else's opinion -- not yours, not mine, and damned sure not the taxi cartel's -- is of any importance. That doesn't mean there aren't risks, of course, especially for those who think the cheap rides are going to last forever. If government has a legitimate role here, it will come into play when the VCs get tired of subsidizing said Uber and Lyft customers. The taxi medallion business may be dead, but it won't be buried for good until the ride-sharing industry is genuinely self-sustaining.